john/claude-engineering-plugin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(document-review): smarter autofix, batch-confirm, and error/omission classification (#401)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-03-26 19:40:13 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent b30288c44e
commit 0863cfa4cb
4 changed files with 95 additions and 46 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/references/subagent-template.md
View File

@@ -22,9 +22,13 @@ Rules:
- Suppress any finding below your stated confidence floor (see your Confidence calibration section).
- Every finding MUST include at least one evidence item -- a direct quote from the document.
- You are operationally read-only. Analyze the document and produce findings. Do not edit the document, create files, or make changes. You may use non-mutating tools (file reads, glob, grep, git log) to gather context about the codebase when evaluating feasibility or existing patterns.
- Set `finding_type` for every finding:
- `error`: Something the document says that is wrong -- contradictions, incorrect statements, design tensions, incoherent tradeoffs.
- `omission`: Something the document forgot to say -- missing mechanical steps, absent list entries, undefined thresholds, forgotten cross-references.
- Set `autofix_class` conservatively:
- `auto`: Only for local, deterministic fixes -- terminology corrections, formatting fixes, cross-reference repairs. The fix must be unambiguous and not change the document's meaning.
- `present`: Everything else -- strategic questions, tradeoffs, meaning-changing fixes, informational findings.
- `auto`: Deterministic fixes where the correct value is verifiable from the document itself -- terminology corrections, formatting fixes, cross-reference repairs, wrong counts, missing list entries where the correct entry exists elsewhere in the document. The fix must be unambiguous.
- `batch_confirm`: Obvious fix with one clear correct answer, but it touches document meaning. Examples: adding a missing implementation step that is mechanically implied by other content, updating a summary to match its own details. Use when reasonable people would agree on the fix but it goes beyond cosmetic correction.
- `present`: Everything else -- strategic questions, tradeoffs, design tensions where reasonable people could disagree, informational findings.
- `suggested_fix` is optional. Only include it when the fix is obvious and correct. For `present` findings, frame as a question instead.
- If you find no issues, return an empty findings array. Still populate residual_risks and deferred_questions if applicable.
- Use your suppress conditions. Do not flag issues that belong to other personas.